PDA

View Full Version : Tiger vs. Jack



MWM
08-06-2006, 06:06 PM
I think the time has come to start the conversation of greatest golfer of all time. I'm just in awe of Tiger Woods and feel truly lucky to be able to watch what he's accomplishing. I'm out of superlatives to describe him.

So who is the greatest golfer of all time? Jack or Tiger?

HumnHilghtFreel
08-06-2006, 06:10 PM
The mere fact that Tiger is closing in on Jack's records at such a young age, in a sport where you can play professionally into your 60's is impressive beyond words. I don't think anyone will ever come close to Tiger once he's done.

RFS62
08-06-2006, 08:19 PM
Nobody has ever played better golf than Tiger is playing right now.

Watching him play now is like watching 27 year old Willie Mays. He's special.

Jack is still the winner as I read your poll, until Tiger passes him in titles and majors. That will happen if he doesn't get hurt.

Tiger is a state of the art killing machine. Mind and body, fitness and nutrition, lifestyle...... everything he does is thought out and purposeful.

Including his smokin' hot wife.

NJReds
08-06-2006, 08:24 PM
I voted for Jack, although I'm totally amazed by Tiger and I think when all is said and done, he'll surpass Jack's records. However, I think Jack had much tougher competition (that doesn't wilt on the back nine of a major).

I would love to see Jack in his prime and Tiger in his prime heading to the 10th tee at Augusta in a dead tie. That would be some match.

RedFanAlways1966
08-06-2006, 08:31 PM
I voted for Jack. In 5-10 years I might change that vote to Tiger (as RFS62 was sayin'). I too feel lucky to see Tiger... like getting to watch Michael Jordan during his prime.

MWM
08-06-2006, 08:41 PM
Jack is still the winner as I read your poll, until Tiger passes him in titles and majors. That will happen if he doesn't get hurt.


Stats don't tell the whole story. :evil: :devil:

If it were just a matter of who won the most majors, then there's no need for debate, you just look at the numbers. My intent was more who do you think was a better golfer. I know it's not a black and white question and there's really not a right or wrong answer. But I also don't think it's as simple as total majors won either. Clearly Jack did it longer as of right now, but that by itself doesn't make him better. Tiger's proven longevity at this point, even though it's not quite as long as Jack. That was the only thing delaying this debate 4-5 years ago. Tiger's dominated long enough now to make the longevity argument less viable, IMO. But is what Tiger is doing now more impressive than what NIckalus was doing when he was dominating, irrespective of who did it longer at this point.

If something happened to Tiger tomorrow and he never played another golf tournament in his life, I think the case could be made that Tiger is the best ever, even though his career was shorter. It's not dissimilar to the Koufax argument you've got a lot of passion around. He clearly didn't have the longevity of some of the other all-time greats, but he was clearly one of the best ever.

Highlifeman21
08-06-2006, 08:55 PM
Unfortunately, you can't compare these 2 head to head.

Golf doesn't match up generation to generation like baseball can with indepth statistical analysis. It's not like there's a course factor, like there is park factor (to give a brief example). You also have to take into account technology issues, like equipment.

Technology is so much more advanced now than in the days of Jones, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, and even so in Nicklaus' day. The biggest glaring difference is in ball technology alone. Now, we have up to 4 piece golf balls, that deal with spin rates in a way that the 1 and 2 piece versions in the days of old can't even remotely compete.

The 2nd biggest difference would be in shaft technology. Golf has traveled from wood shafts requiring a smooth 1 plane sweep swing to currently where you have beasts up there swinging space shuttle grade graphite that is as stiff as anything on the planet to steel that is light and stiff. Golf today is a much more violent game, as a whole. The materials allow for it to be a power game, rather than a game of finesse.

Lastly, the other huge difference is in club material. The irons don't matter as much, as your true players used blades smaller than today's true player, but the metalwoods technology is also staggering. Persimmmon is a whole lot different than forged steel, or titanium. Guess which ones are more forgiving and go a hell of a lot farther?

I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

Unfortunately, it's more of a torch being passed as best of his generation to those 4, respectively.

I wish Golf had the ability to be analyzed cross-generationally, but it can't. With the technology advances/differences alone, comparing Bobby Jones to Tiger Woods would be like giving Babe Ruth an aluminum bat in today's parks. Nicklaus to Woods is a better comparison, b/c less time separates them, but it's still not apples to apples.

Tiger Woods is my generation's best golfer, as I was born on the tail end of the Nicklaus regime, but you just can't accurately, or fairly compare them.

You can compare their Major Victories all you want, 18 to 11 right now, but Tiger still has an unfair equipment advantage.

Jones vs Hogan vs Nicklaus vs Woods? Advantage: Push

SunDeck
08-06-2006, 08:58 PM
I think the biggest difference between them is the relative strength of their competition. Jack Nicklaus dominated an extremely talented generation of golfers, while Tiger dominates a group that has only a few who are close to his level.

As to comparing them, Tiger may be the best shot maker ever, but he probably never even held a one iron, which Nicklaus could hit sky high and let the ball drop onto the green so soft you could catch it in your mouth (to paraphrase Lee Trevino). Both of them have the ability to pull out an extra thirty yards from the tee when they want it, and both of them are able to grind out a string of birdies when their competition gets close in tight round. To be sure, these guys are both playing a different game their peers, but I think the game has less finesse than it did forty years ago, so that it is difficult to say which of them is actually better. Tiger can bomb and gouge AND he can take dead aim from 200 yards, but if the game had changed prior to Nicklaus' coming of age, who's to say he wouldn't have been able to do the same?

Hoosier Red
08-07-2006, 11:50 AM
I think the level of competition swings in Tigers' favor actually.

There are now 40-50 golfers who with a hot week can win the tournament.

When Jack entered a tournament, or Arnie, or Trevino, or Watson.
They would win so long as they didn't screw up.

The guys on top may not be as quality(I think this is exaggerated by Tigers dominance,) but there is definately a much deeper pool of players who can win.

guttle11
08-07-2006, 12:43 PM
Unfortunately, you can't compare these 2 head to head.

Golf doesn't match up generation to generation like baseball can with indepth statistical analysis. It's not like there's a course factor, like there is park factor (to give a brief example). You also have to take into account technology issues, like equipment.

Technology is so much more advanced now than in the days of Jones, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, and even so in Nicklaus' day. The biggest glaring difference is in ball technology alone. Now, we have up to 4 piece golf balls, that deal with spin rates in a way that the 1 and 2 piece versions in the days of old can't even remotely compete.

The 2nd biggest difference would be in shaft technology. Golf has traveled from wood shafts requiring a smooth 1 plane sweep swing to currently where you have beasts up there swinging space shuttle grade graphite that is as stiff as anything on the planet to steel that is light and stiff. Golf today is a much more violent game, as a whole. The materials allow for it to be a power game, rather than a game of finesse.

Lastly, the other huge difference is in club material. The irons don't matter as much, as your true players used blades smaller than today's true player, but the metalwoods technology is also staggering. Persimmmon is a whole lot different than forged steel, or titanium. Guess which ones are more forgiving and go a hell of a lot farther?

I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

Unfortunately, it's more of a torch being passed as best of his generation to those 4, respectively.

I wish Golf had the ability to be analyzed cross-generationally, but it can't. With the technology advances/differences alone, comparing Bobby Jones to Tiger Woods would be like giving Babe Ruth an aluminum bat in today's parks. Nicklaus to Woods is a better comparison, b/c less time separates them, but it's still not apples to apples.

Tiger Woods is my generation's best golfer, as I was born on the tail end of the Nicklaus regime, but you just can't accurately, or fairly compare them.

You can compare their Major Victories all you want, 18 to 11 right now, but Tiger still has an unfair equipment advantage.

Jones vs Hogan vs Nicklaus vs Woods? Advantage: Push

The technology debate in golf doesn't really hold water. Everything changes and improves over time. That's a given. That's not Tiger's fault. No matter how "hot" a driver is, the game is still simple. Put the little white ball in that little cup as fast as possible.

What we should be looking at is Tiger and Jack competitors. Top to bottom, the world of professional (or competitive) golf is world's better now than it ever has been. Anyone who enters a tour event, and even a major, has a legitimate shot at winning. Back when Jack played, many only had hopes.

The debate shouldn't be about technology, it should be about beating what's in front of you. Tiger's been playing professionally for slightly over a decade and he's got 50 wins and 11 majors. He also has 3 US Junior, and 3 US Amatuer titles. Only Bobby Jones can compare with Tiger's amateur record, but that was an entirely different era, with no where near the competition.

HumnHilghtFreel
08-07-2006, 01:04 PM
While watching SportsCenter this morning, they said that with his 50th win, he has now won 25.5% of all events he has competed in to this date. When you win your tournament 1/4 of the time in your career, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

Chip R
08-07-2006, 01:23 PM
I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

That would be some foursome, wouldn't it?

paintmered
08-07-2006, 03:02 PM
I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

I agree with this. And all of them can make the claim for different reasons.

I would also add the greatest match play player of all time to your list: Walter Hagen (who also happens to have 11 majors to his name and probably would have had more if the Masters existed back then).

But as for Tiger, he really has been a joy to watch lately.

Reds4Life
08-07-2006, 03:02 PM
At this point in time, Jack is still the best. When all is said and done, Tiger will be the new king of the mountain.

RFS62
08-07-2006, 03:57 PM
"Best"

What a subjective term.

Some may say the owner of the "best" swing of all time was Sam Snead.

Highlifeman21
08-07-2006, 04:12 PM
The technology debate in golf doesn't really hold water. Everything changes and improves over time. That's a given. That's not Tiger's fault. No matter how "hot" a driver is, the game is still simple. Put the little white ball in that little cup as fast as possible.

What we should be looking at is Tiger and Jack competitors. Top to bottom, the world of professional (or competitive) golf is world's better now than it ever has been. Anyone who enters a tour event, and even a major, has a legitimate shot at winning. Back when Jack played, many only had hopes.

The debate shouldn't be about technology, it should be about beating what's in front of you. Tiger's been playing professionally for slightly over a decade and he's got 50 wins and 11 majors. He also has 3 US Junior, and 3 US Amatuer titles. Only Bobby Jones can compare with Tiger's amateur record, but that was an entirely different era, with no where near the competition.

There's no way you can completely discount the technology side of this argument. Technology is the biggest topic in my industry right now.

I'm sure you've heard the term "Tiger-Proofing" courses, since Augusta's tried to do it every year since 1997 and that's largely due to advances in ball and club technology. It's also the debate of the 2011 or 2013 site of the US Open, Merion East. This course is barely 7000 yards, and many have said it won't survive today's big hitters, but the 2005 US Am showed that Merion can and will hold up to longer hitters. Courses wouldn't feel the need to "Tiger-Proof" if players today weren't hitting it ridiculously farther.

This has never been a simple game, and never will be, but will be more of a craft that no one will ever master, yet everyone attempts to try. No one's ever been perfect at golf, nor will they ever be.

We can look at competition all you want. Jack had an aging Arnie, Trevino, an aging Player, an inconsistent Miller, an up and coming Watson, a young Floyd, a Jacklin, a Ballesteros. Tiger's had a litany of guys challenging him. Hell, Bob May of all people took him to a playoff in a Major. Golfers as a whole, are getting better. Tiger has the ability to be beaten on a weekly basis moreso than Jack, but Jack was ridiculously better than his generation. Comparatively, Jack was better than his generation than Tiger's been to his, respectively. I agree completely that the world of professional golf is better now.

As for Jones, and his amateur record, that's b/c Jones hardly played in many professional events, and quit the game when he was dead in the middle of his prime. Jones' amateur record is a thing of beauty.

If push came to shove, I would still go Jones, Tiger, Hogan, Jack, in that order.

guttle11
08-07-2006, 05:41 PM
There's no way you can completely discount the technology side of this argument. Technology is the biggest topic in my industry right now.

I'm sure you've heard the term "Tiger-Proofing" courses, since Augusta's tried to do it every year since 1997 and that's largely due to advances in ball and club technology. It's also the debate of the 2011 or 2013 site of the US Open, Merion East. This course is barely 7000 yards, and many have said it won't survive today's big hitters, but the 2005 US Am showed that Merion can and will hold up to longer hitters. Courses wouldn't feel the need to "Tiger-Proof" if players today weren't hitting it ridiculously farther.

This has never been a simple game, and never will be, but will be more of a craft that no one will ever master, yet everyone attempts to try. No one's ever been perfect at golf, nor will they ever be.

We can look at competition all you want. Jack had an aging Arnie, Trevino, an aging Player, an inconsistent Miller, an up and coming Watson, a young Floyd, a Jacklin, a Ballesteros. Tiger's had a litany of guys challenging him. Hell, Bob May of all people took him to a playoff in a Major. Golfers as a whole, are getting better. Tiger has the ability to be beaten on a weekly basis moreso than Jack, but Jack was ridiculously better than his generation. Comparatively, Jack was better than his generation than Tiger's been to his, respectively. I agree completely that the world of professional golf is better now.

As for Jones, and his amateur record, that's b/c Jones hardly played in many professional events, and quit the game when he was dead in the middle of his prime. Jones' amateur record is a thing of beauty.

If push came to shove, I would still go Jones, Tiger, Hogan, Jack, in that order.

Well, I happen to be highly involved in your profession and I am only a couple of years from entering it. Using technology in your debate only holds true if you're talking about who's the better ball striker. It was much harder to strike the ball well with persimmon woods and hickory shafts. But being a better golfer is much more than a ball striker. There were many people who could outshoot Michael Jordan, but only a few who could compare to him as a player.

It's tougher to win now than it was 30 years ago and Tiger dominates when he's playing well. To me, that makes him a better golfer. Tiger, Jack, Jones, Hagen, and Hogan, in that order.

Hoosier Red
08-07-2006, 05:50 PM
Unless Tiger is using better technology than any of his contemporaries, the argument doesn't hold water.

Nicklaus played against guys with wood drivers.
Tiger played against guys with metal drivers.

The difference is the field is a lot deeper with talent today than it ever was before.

Highlifeman21
08-07-2006, 06:12 PM
Well, I happen to be highly involved in your profession and I am only a couple of years from entering it. Using technology in your debate only holds true if you're talking about who's the better ball striker. It was much harder to strike the ball well with persimmon woods and hickory shafts. But being a better golfer is much more than a ball striker. There were many people who could outshoot Michael Jordan, but only a few who could compare to him as a player.

It's tougher to win now than it was 30 years ago and Tiger dominates when he's playing well. To me, that makes him a better golfer. Tiger, Jack, Jones, Hagen, and Hogan, in that order.

Golf balls have changed immensely in the last 120 years.

Shafts have changed immensely in the last 120 years.

Club components have changed immensely in the last 120 years.

Jones won with his respective equipment, Woods is winning with different equipment. Nicklaus is probably the closest to the middle between those two in terms of equipment. You still can't compare generations b/c of the difference in equipment and technology. You can talk all you want about difference of competition faced, but Jones was above and beyond his generation, Hogan was above and beyond his generation before his accident, Nicklaus was above and beyond his generation, but so far, Tiger has proven to be mortal. Tiger's still in the argument for best ever, but right now he's starting to break away from his generation again. Had Mickelson not won his quick 3 Majors in the last few years, I would have easily said Tiger was the best of his generation, but there is some parity in this generation, and that can't be refuted.

If you wanna go the ball striker route, Tiger isn't in the top 5 of best ball strikers of all time. Trevino, Moe Norman, Hogan, Jones, Snead are all better than Tiger.

guttle11
08-07-2006, 07:16 PM
Golf balls have changed immensely in the last 120 years.

Shafts have changed immensely in the last 120 years.

Club components have changed immensely in the last 120 years.

Jones won with his respective equipment, Woods is winning with different equipment. Nicklaus is probably the closest to the middle between those two in terms of equipment. You still can't compare generations b/c of the difference in equipment and technology. You can talk all you want about difference of competition faced, but Jones was above and beyond his generation, Hogan was above and beyond his generation before his accident, Nicklaus was above and beyond his generation, but so far, Tiger has proven to be mortal. Tiger's still in the argument for best ever, but right now he's starting to break away from his generation again. Had Mickelson not won his quick 3 Majors in the last few years, I would have easily said Tiger was the best of his generation, but there is some parity in this generation, and that can't be refuted.

If you wanna go the ball striker route, Tiger isn't in the top 5 of best ball strikers of all time. Trevino, Moe Norman, Hogan, Jones, Snead are all better than Tiger.

With all due respect, if you can't say Tiger is far and away the best of his generation, you need to watch a little closer. You do realize that Jack had a few "droughts" where others beat him, don't you?

Highlifeman21
08-07-2006, 07:57 PM
With all due respect, if you can't say Tiger is far and away the best of his generation, you need to watch a little closer. You do realize that Jack had a few "droughts" where others beat him, don't you?

I've watched plenty close. Jack was beaten, Tiger's been beaten. Tiger is the best of his generation, but you also have golfers like Goosen, Els, Mickelson, Singh to consider in Tiger's generation. All have won multiple Majors. Tiger has been great so far, but his generation is far from over, so I'm not ready to crown him quite yet.

guttle11
08-07-2006, 08:40 PM
I've watched plenty close. Jack was beaten, Tiger's been beaten. Tiger is the best of his generation, but you also have golfers like Goosen, Els, Mickelson, Singh to consider in Tiger's generation. All have won multiple Majors. Tiger has been great so far, but his generation is far from over, so I'm not ready to crown him quite yet.

We'll leave it at this, they're both great. You like history and think because technology has made the game easier for the common man others are better than an incomplete career for Tiger, and I differ.

Technology aside, it's widely believed by so called "experts" that it's harder to win majors now than ever. I'll take Tiger.

RFS62
08-07-2006, 08:46 PM
The ability to separate yourself from the pack is relative to the depth of the field at the time.

The depth on tour right now is unprecedented.

MaineRed
08-07-2006, 09:04 PM
Agreed RFS62, especially at the majors, which is what everyone uses to guage greatness.

Everyone glorifies Arnie and Gary Player, and rightfully so but has there ever been so much depth? Guys all have swing coaches, yoga teachers, short game coaches all this technology and Tiger still kicks the snot out of them half the time (at least it seems). Sure Tiger has the same benefits but that is sort of the point. In that respect, everyone is on an even keel. Back in the day only a handful of guys could afford to travel nicely and pay people big bucks to help them. And certainly not everyone on tour had an endoresment deal 30 years ago (just a guess). But Jack certainly did.

Not sure what Jack did with 54 hole leads but all Tiger does is close the door. The tourney is over after 54 if he leads.

If you are going to compare the two, you can't compare their records. You have to look into the future and predict what you think Tiger is going to do. If you ask me he is closer to winning 25 majors than he is to winning 17. He is going by Jack and it might be the time he is 37. He'll still have 8 years or more of a prime left. Look at Vijay. And Tiger is in better shape and works just as hard.

Obviously the book is not closed but for the sake of this thread, I went with Tiger. No way was Jack, THIS good between the ages of 16 and 30. Jack could play, no doubt. But Tiger destroys people. Put him in the pressure cooker, he's coming out on top. Sometimes he just has a problem getting himself into that pressure cooker but that is to be expected.

What has he missed, two cuts in 10 years?

And this from someone who cheers against the guy. I'd rather see, ANYONE else win. But I have to repsect the guy. I play golf and on my very best day, I've shot 3 over on my home course and I've been playing it for over 20 years. Tiger could show up, walk to the first tee without warming up and shoot a 61. I respect that.

Ravenlord
08-07-2006, 09:40 PM
Tiger's very rarely faced good competition on a Sunday with a small lead.

Highlifeman21
08-07-2006, 10:18 PM
We'll leave it at this, they're both great. You like history and think because technology has made the game easier for the common man others are better than an incomplete career for Tiger, and I differ.

Technology aside, it's widely believed by so called "experts" that it's harder to win majors now than ever. I'll take Tiger.

They are both great.

I respect the history of the game, and I think it can't easily be forgotten or brushed aside. I don't think technology has made the game easier, I just think that different generations used different technology, so to me there's no easy way to compare the generations. I think right now, golfers are better as a whole, and there is more parity in the current generation with a handful of guys winning multiple majors in Tiger's era. Tiger's career is far from incomplete, he has many astounding accolades.

Tiger has 11, I hope he doubles it and puts the Tiger vs. Jack debate to bed, since I think Tiger is a more complete golfer than Jack, but I think Tiger falls short of Bobby Jones.

Great points though, guttle11, good luck in the biz, with whatever path you choose.

MWM
08-08-2006, 01:43 AM
I'll chime in now since I started the whole discussion. First of all, there's clearly no right answer. Both Tiger and Jack, and other mentioned, are clearly the eliite of the elite in the sport's history.

My analysis of the question also comes down to technology and competition. I agree with Hoosier about the competition making what Tiger is doing these days all the more impressive (and the equpiment which I'll get to is a big part of the reason). There's just so many more great players today than there's ever been. You might not have those 5 dominating personalities (although Els, Singh, Goosen, and Phil are pretty big names) these days because the overall talent level is so much higher coming from outside the top 10. The difference between the top players and the 50th best player in the world today is much smaller than in Jack's day, IMO. Like Hoosier said, on any given week, there are dozens of players with the game to win on the PGA Tour. That wasn't always true. That's why you see so many no names winnign golf tournaments these days. It seems like every time I turn around there's 2 names in the top 5 of tournaments I've never heard of and I follow the game pretty closely.

As for technology, my opinion is that technology helps the lesser players much more than the great ones because you don't have to be quite as precise. i'm not suggesting it doesn't also help the great players quite a bit, but the great ones were always the most precise. It takes a bigger miss these days to make shot go bad. You don't have to have a perfect swing to hit good golf shots. I think technology has done more to level the playing field than anything else.

The thing that stands out to me is that a decade ago I never thought anyone would dominate the game of golf again. There would always be great players, but I didn't think it was capable of being dominated. Prior to Tiger there really hadn't been anyone who dominated the game since Jack Nicklaus. Prior to Jack there was always one or two golfer who were able to crush the competition over a period of years. Since Nickalus and Watson in the late 70s, early 80s, it had been almost 20 years since Tiger started to dominate in 2000+. I think we were seeing the result of the explosion of the game to the mainstream and a much deeper talent pool and also the exponential and perpetual increase in technological innovation. As I mentioned earlier, I think this makes it more difficult for some to spearate themselves from the pack like Tige has.

Winning over 25% of your tournaments is something I didn't think possible in this era of golf and Tiger is doing it. Does anyone know Jack's winning percentage when he was in his prime?

I give the nod to Tiger, but it's not a slam dunk.

Jpup
08-08-2006, 06:29 AM
I voted for Tiger, but I think Annika Sorenstam is the best golfer in the world right now. No, I don't think she is better than Tiger, but far and away the best female golfer in the world and very, very good. The difference between her and the competition is far greater than Tiger and his. I really enjoy watching her play golf.

Puffy
08-10-2006, 11:24 AM
I voted for Jack - give Tiger two more years of the same high quality golf and then i think he surpasses Jack. But for now I am going with Jack's carrer greatness and dominance being longer than Tiger's

RANDY IN INDY
08-12-2006, 09:58 AM
I voted for Jack, but there is no question that Tiger may become the greatest golfer of all time. In my opinion, they are the best by a large margin.

As far as equipment goes, I have played the old persimmon woods, blade irons and balata balls as well as the great new technology of today. I do know that the technology has made a tremendous difference in my game, and has made the game much easier for me. The thing that I see for players of today as opposed to earlier generations is that they don't have to hit all the shots. It is much easier for these guys to hit driver and short iron than it is to hit driver and long iron on a par 4. That in itself makes the game so much easier.

MWM
08-20-2006, 08:18 PM
I know today doesn't change the debate but Tiger is simply unreal. He's embarassing the rest of the golfers out there, and there are some great ones.

I did read one interesting tidbit today. Tiger has won his 12 majors by a total of 56 strokes. Nicklaus won his 18 by a total of 44.

Chip R
08-20-2006, 09:30 PM
The thing about Tiger is that he always closes. Every time he has been in the lead after 54 he has won. You can talk about his competition or the technology or whatever but he wins it every time. And it is the mental game that puts him head and shoulders above his peers and most of the great ones of the past. Lefty is no worse of a ball striker than Tiger but he does not have the drive that Tiger does. He kind of has the Danny Graves mentality (not to mention his body). If he wins, great. If not, oh well.

Now, that said, Tiger has never come from behind to win a major. That is not criticism but just something interesting to talk about. Nicklaus and Palmer were famous for their charges. Palmer was legendary for coming from way behind to win the 1960 Open at Cherry Hills. I think it is only a matter of time before Tiger comes from behind to win a major but he has not done it yet. You think he would because of the fear he puts into the other players. You have to think they are shaking in their shoes if Tiger is coming from behind in a tournament.

One has to wonder what Tiger would have done this year if his dad had not been ill or had passed away early in the year. Not to take anything away from Tiger but he won the two easiest majors. I will grant you the British Open can be difficult especially for American players but if you have decent conditions on the right course, it is not that great of a challenge. Lefty won the Masters and should have won the Open except for that massive brain fart. But that is what seperates Tiger from Lefty. Tiger never would have screwed up like that. It may not have even come to that.

I was not blessed enough to see Hogan or Palmer in their primes. I have been blessed enough to see Tiger and Jack in their primes. If you are a golf fan, feel very fortunate that you are seeing one of the best ever in his prime.

MWM
08-20-2006, 09:50 PM
Now, that said, Tiger has never come from behind to win a major. That is not criticism but just something interesting to talk about. Nicklaus and Palmer were famous for their charges. Palmer was legendary for coming from way behind to win the 1960 Open at Cherry Hills. I think it is only a matter of time before Tiger comes from behind to win a major but he has not done it yet. You think he would because of the fear he puts into the other players. You have to think they are shaking in their shoes if Tiger is coming from behind in a tournament.


That's an interesting point and one they were talking about on the Golf Channel last night. I thought Nobilo made a great point that if you look at tthe sheer number of majors he's won, now 12, that's a very high number to have won to begin with to think that his not having come from behind means anything. He also said that it's because he's in the lead so much, which is true. Tiger manages his tournaments to be within range after round 1, to be close after round 2, and make a charge in round 3 to play int he last group. He makes his charges on Saturday. His Saturday charges are legendary. That's his strategy and it works. I don't think it takes anything away at all that he's never come from behind. He's won so many to make that point moot. If he was behind Nickalus' pace, I would agree with that critique (that some, not Chip, are making). But he puts so much emphasis on Saturday, and he's so good at accomplishing what he wants to accomplish, that he never seems to put himself in a position to NEED to come from behind.

Reds4Life
08-20-2006, 10:11 PM
If you are a golf fan, feel very fortunate that you are seeing one of the best ever in his prime.

You can say that again, 12-0 when going into the final round of a major as leader or co-leader, simply unreal. I even blew off going out with the woman today to stay home and watch his final round. :thumbup:

Chip R
08-20-2006, 11:01 PM
I even blew off going out with the woman today to stay home and watch his final round. :thumbup:

Making the ultimate sacrifice, eh? ;)

guttle11
08-20-2006, 11:10 PM
I voted for Jack, but there is no question that Tiger may become the greatest golfer of all time. In my opinion, they are the best by a large margin.

As far as equipment goes, I have played the old persimmon woods, blade irons and balata balls as well as the great new technology of today. I do know that the technology has made a tremendous difference in my game, and has made the game much easier for me. The thing that I see for players of today as opposed to earlier generations is that they don't have to hit all the shots. It is much easier for these guys to hit driver and short iron than it is to hit driver and long iron on a par 4. That in itself makes the game so much easier.

They don't HAVE to hit all the shots, but the greats still can. And the technology is even for everyone on the tour. Tiger still beats them all. Because of the technology, Tigers scoring records are meaningless, but his propensity to win and dominate is far from it. Technology can't touch that. The depth of the tour fantastic and Tiger still scares all but two guys, DiMarco and Bob May. They're the only guys never to wilt to Tiger.

He makes it look easy. Donald knew they only way to beat Tiger was to hit amazing shot after amazing shot. Tiger knew it, too. Donald just isn't that good.

Reds4Life
08-20-2006, 11:29 PM
Making the ultimate sacrifice, eh? ;)

It was nice and yap free for a change. :D

flyer85
08-21-2006, 11:42 AM
I think the biggest difference between them is the relative strength of their competition. Jack Nicklaus dominated an extremely talented generation of golfers, while Tiger dominates a group that has only a few who are close to his level. much higher level of competition today as golf is no longer a game dominated by American. It is a global game with great golfers coming from all parts of the world. In Jacks day the depth of talent was much less than today with golf having become such a global sport.

RANDY IN INDY
08-21-2006, 12:01 PM
They don't HAVE to hit all the shots, but the greats still can. And the technology is even for everyone on the tour. Tiger still beats them all. Because of the technology, Tigers scoring records are meaningless, but his propensity to win and dominate is far from it. Technology can't touch that. The depth of the tour fantastic and Tiger still scares all but two guys, DiMarco and Bob May. They're the only guys never to wilt to Tiger.

He makes it look easy. Donald knew they only way to beat Tiger was to hit amazing shot after amazing shot. Tiger knew it, too. Donald just isn't that good.

Can't disagree that they can hit the shots, but, it is much easier to hit PW-7 into greens, consistently, than it is to hit 6-FW woods.

flyer85
08-21-2006, 01:19 PM
Can't disagree that they can hit the shots, but, it is much easier to hit PW-7 into greens, consistently, than it is to hit 6-FW woods.which is what makes Tiger special. He hits the long irons better than his adversaries. That's why he has been able to win the last two majors and has hardly used his driver. At the British and somewhat at Medinah he had a lot of long irons into the greens. His new swing with Haney has really taken his long iron play to an unreal level.

RANDY IN INDY
08-21-2006, 01:39 PM
While technology has helped Tiger, it has probably helped him a lot less than the majority of his competition. Tiger would have been successful in any era, as well as Jack.

flyer85
08-21-2006, 01:43 PM
While technology has helped Tiger, it has probably helped him a lot less than the majority of his competition. Tiger would have been successful in any era, as well as Jack.if it was solely technology that made it easy to control the long irons then everyone would hit them well.

paintmered
08-21-2006, 05:38 PM
I think it's a stretch to claim that Nike's clubs are better than the major golf equipment companies - and that makes it all the more impressive.

Hoosier Red
08-21-2006, 05:49 PM
My dad told me a story about playing in a Pro-am 20 years or so ago. He said the conversation turned to Nicklaus and why he was so good.

The pro said," Sure Nicklaus hits it further than anyone else, but that's not why he wins. There are four big reasons he wins all the big tournaments..."

1.He works harder than anyone else

2. He's a better course manager than anyone else

3. Everyone knows he's better than them

4. He knows everyone knows he's better than them.

I think this applies to Tiger as well.

RedsManRick
08-21-2006, 05:56 PM
I find it very unlikely than Tiger's success is attributible to superior technology or equipment. It is uncommon that any individual is able to so completely dominate his/her field in any profession, athletic or otherwise.

Other than watching Bonds during his bulked up brilliance, I've never gotten the feeling that any one person was so far removed from the rest. Truly remarkable.

Nugget
08-21-2006, 11:35 PM
My dad told me a story about playing in a Pro-am 20 years or so ago. He said the conversation turned to Nicklaus and why he was so good.

The pro said," Sure Nicklaus hits it further than anyone else, but that's not why he wins. There are four big reasons he wins all the big tournaments..."

1.He works harder than anyone else

2. He's a better course manager than anyone else

3. Everyone knows he's better than them

4. He knows everyone knows he's better than them.

I think this applies to Tiger as well.


Spot on - also heard what Sergio Garcia said - talk about sour grapes.

Highlifeman21
08-23-2006, 06:55 AM
I think it's a stretch to claim that Nike's clubs are better than the major golf equipment companies - and that makes it all the more impressive.


The clubs Tiger uses may say Nike on them, but they are actually forged by Mizuno. A little food for thought.

It's not the club or component side of the technology coin that's staggering, it's the ball side. The golf ball today isn't your daddy's golf ball. 3 piece, 4 pieces, a lot different than a wound balata.

Highlifeman21
08-23-2006, 07:00 AM
My dad told me a story about playing in a Pro-am 20 years or so ago. He said the conversation turned to Nicklaus and why he was so good.

The pro said," Sure Nicklaus hits it further than anyone else, but that's not why he wins. There are four big reasons he wins all the big tournaments..."

1.He works harder than anyone else

2. He's a better course manager than anyone else

3. Everyone knows he's better than them

4. He knows everyone knows he's better than them.

I think this applies to Tiger as well.


This is the biggest reason Tiger won the last two majors. He led the field in GIR, and wisely chose clubs off the tee. Tiger could have hit 3 wood or 5 wood all the way around Medinah and still won by 3 shots. He should have left the driver in Florida.

Reasons 3 and 4 are why the rest of the field folded like a cheap suit on Sunday. Mike Weir suddenly remembered that 80 he shot in the same group with Eldrick in 1999, and Sergio is probably one of the worse putters the Tour has seen in a decade. Take those two reasons, and join that with Luke "Deer in Headlights" Donald, and you get Tiger by 5.

Now, unfortunately, we're starting to see a reverse trend where Tiger has no competition at the present moment. Look for him to make another run at a Tiger Slam, where he could feasibly win the 07 Masters and 07 US Open and hold all 4 titles at once, albeit not in the same calendar year.

MWM
09-04-2006, 06:13 PM
Wow. Just wow! I'm afraid if I tried to describe Tiger, the words couldn't possibly do justice. And Vijay is no slouch.

Matt700wlw
09-04-2006, 06:15 PM
How good is Tiger?

Amazing. 5 in a row.

Highlifeman21
09-04-2006, 07:11 PM
Wow. Just wow! I'm afraid if I tried to describe Tiger, the words couldn't possibly do justice. And Vijay is no slouch.


6 under on his first 7 holes today. Goes out in 30, coasts in with 33.

45% of the way to equaling Nelson's mark. If there's one record I want to see broken, it's not the 56 game Joe D streak, it's Byron Nelson's 11 in a row.

Let's hope he uses this momemtum to do some work in the Ryder Cup, since that's the only glaring weakness to Tiger's career so far.

NJReds
09-05-2006, 09:06 AM
Can I change my vote...wow, he's on a roll.

paintmered
09-14-2006, 10:20 PM
Tiger lost to Shaun Micheel today in the opening round of the Match Play Championships: 4 and 3. His loss today officially ends his streak.

He will have the chance to correct his match play history in the Ryder Cup. But his Ryder Cup play is his lone major blemish on his record. Today's result doesn't give me much faith that he's going to turn that around this year. The Americans are overdue for a win and Tiger is going to have to pull his weight for that to happen.

Hoosier Red
09-14-2006, 10:28 PM
What was Jack's Ryder Cup record?

Tigers' gets the spotlight because of the world we live in trying to find a fault, any fault in his game.

The Europeans were taking it to the Americans long before Tiger put on the ugly american team shirt.

paintmered
09-14-2006, 10:40 PM
What was Jack's Ryder Cup record?

Tigers' gets the spotlight because of the world we live in trying to find a fault, any fault in his game.

Jack's Ryder Cup record is 17-8-3 in six competitions.

Tiger's record is 7-11-2 through four competitions.



The Europeans were taking it to the Americans long before Tiger put on the ugly american team shirt.



1999 The Country Club, Brookline, MA U.S. 14 1/2 Europe 13 1/2
1997 Valderrama GC, Sotogrande Spain Europe 14 1/2 U.S. 13 1/2
1995 Oak Hill CC, Rochester, NY Europe 14 1/2 U.S. 13 1/2
1993 The Belfry, Sutton Coldfield, Eng U.S. 15 Europe 13
1991 The Ocean Course,Kiawah Islnd, S.C. U.S. 14 1/2 Europe 13 1/2
1989 The Belfry, Sutton Coldfield, Eng Europe 14 U.S. 14
1987 Muirfield Village GC, Dublin, Ohio Europe 15 U.S. 13
1985 The Belfry, Sutton Coldfield, Eng Europe 16 1/2 U.S. 11 1/2
1983 PGA Ntnl GC, Plm Beach Gdns, Fla. U.S. 14 1/2 Europe 13 1/2
1981 Walton Health GC, Surrey, England U.S. 18 1/2 Europe 9 1/2
1979 The Greenbrier,W. Va. U.S. 17 Europe 11
1977 Royal Lytham & St. Annes, England U.S. 12 1/2 GB & I 7 1/2
1975 Laurel Valley GC, Ligonier, Pa. U.S. 21 GB & I 11
1973 Muirfield, Scotland U.S. 19 GB & I 13
1971 Old Warson CC, St. Louis, Mo. U.S. 18 1/2 Britain 13 1/2
1969 Royal Birkdale GC, Southport, Eng U.S. 16 Britain 16
1967 Champions GC, Houston, Texas U.S. 23 1/2 Britain 8 1/2
1965 Royal Birkdale GC, Southport, Eng U.S. 19 1/2 Britain 12 1/2
1963 East Lake CC, Atlanta, Ga. U.S. 23 Britain 9
1961 Royal Lytham & St. Annes, England U.S. 14 1/2 Britain 9 1/2
1959 Eldorado CC, Palm Desert, Calif. U.S. 8 1/2 Britain 3 1/2
1957 Lindrick GC, Yorkshire, England Britain 7 1/2 U.S. 4 1/2
1955 Thunderbird CC, Plm Springs, Calif. U.S. 8 Britain 4
1953 Wentworth GC, Wentworth, England U.S. 6 1/2 Britain 5 1/2
1951 Pinehurst CC, Pinehurst, N.C. U.S. 9 1/2 Britain 2 1/2
1949 Ganton GC, Scarborough, England U.S. 7 Britain 5
1947 Portland GC, Portland, Ore. U.S. 11 Britain 1
1939-
1945 No Matches played due to World War II
1937 Southport & Ainsdale GC, England U.S. 8 Britain 4
1935 Ridgewood CC, Ridgewood, N.J. U.S. 9 Britain 3
1933 Southport & Ainsdale GC, England Britain 6 1/2 U.S. 5 1/2
1931 Scioto CC, Columbus, Ohio U.S. 9 Britain 3
1929 Moortown GC, Leeds, England Britain 7 U.S. 5
1927 Worcester CC, Worcester, Mass. U.S. 9 1/2 Britain 2 1/2

Chip R
09-15-2006, 12:28 PM
Jack's Ryder Cup record is 17-8-3 in six competitions.

Tiger's record is 7-11-2 through four competitions.


Tiger certainly hasn't proven himself in the Ryder Cup - especially in comparison to Jack - but what you have to remember is that in Jack's day the U.S. only played Great Britian and Ireland while now they play against all of Europe. So the competition now is much steeper. However, if Tiger is the best in the world, he should have somewhat of a better record in Ryder Cup.

Highlifeman21
09-16-2006, 10:44 AM
Tiger lost to Shaun Micheel today in the opening round of the Match Play Championships: 4 and 3. His loss today officially ends his streak.
He will have the chance to correct his match play history in the Ryder Cup. But his Ryder Cup play is his lone major blemish on his record. Today's result doesn't give me much faith that he's going to turn that around this year. The Americans are overdue for a win and Tiger is going to have to pull his weight for that to happen.

False.

Match play events do not count towards his streak. The next stroke play event he enters will determine the fate of the streak.

Tiger's record going into the Ryder Cup, 7-11-2. Look for him to play the majority of his matches with Jim Furyk. Tiger will need to be near perfect for the US to have any remote chance against Europe.

My prediction, Europe 16.5 to 11.5.

RANDY IN INDY
09-16-2006, 11:18 AM
And, the Europeans need to be near perfect to defeat the United States. There is not that great of a talent difference for anyone to accurately predict that one side or the other has only a remote chance of winning. Two very good teams of golfers. The one that is "hot" will win.

Tige's PGA streak does continue. Only PGA events qualify. I also believe that he could play a European Tour event and lose without the streak being broken. Correct me if I am wrong in that assumption.

MWM
09-16-2006, 11:48 AM
Another thing to consider is that the Ryder Cup matches include a partner. Tiger is only hitting half the shots in most of his matches. Anyone know his record in head-to-head?

paintmered
09-16-2006, 03:23 PM
False.

Match play events do not count towards his streak. The next stroke play event he enters will determine the fate of the streak.



I know that now, but it was reported that his streak was officially over when I posted that. I think it was sportscenter that said that right after he lost.

I'm just the messenger of erroneous information. ;)

guttle11
09-16-2006, 05:03 PM
False.

Match play events do not count towards his streak. The next stroke play event he enters will determine the fate of the streak.

Tiger's record going into the Ryder Cup, 7-11-2. Look for him to play the majority of his matches with Jim Furyk. Tiger will need to be near perfect for the US to have any remote chance against Europe.

My prediction, Europe 16.5 to 11.5.

I know he practiced some with JJ Henry, so expect him to play with him once.

Highlifeman21
09-16-2006, 07:32 PM
I know he practiced some with JJ Henry, so expect him to play with him once.


Yeah, it was mentioned on the Golf Channel that Tiger and Henry might play fourball together, but look for Tiger and Jimmy F for alternate shot.

Tiger is only 2-1-1 in Sunday Singles Matches, so head to head he's still mortal in the past. I look for Tiger to win his singles match, and should hopefully offer the US at least 2.5 points. Anything more than that, and I would be surprised, due to the teammate element.


And, the Europeans need to be near perfect to defeat the United States. There is not that great of a talent difference for anyone to accurately predict that one side or the other has only a remote chance of winning. Two very good teams of golfers. The one that is "hot" will win.

Clarke, Casey, Donald, Garcia, Harrington, Howell, Karlsson, McGinley, Montgomerie, Olazabal, Stenson, Westwood. Know thy enemy. 10 out of those 12 have been on winning European teams. Only Furyk, Mickelson and Woods have been on winning US teams. The European teams sports 2 rookies, Karlsson and Stenson. The US has 4: Henry, Johnson, Taylor, and Cincinnati's own Brett Wetterich. The US has a combined career record of 31-39-10. Europe's is 75-42-21. That's kind of staggering to me. Call me un-patriotic, but I just don't see a US victory over at The K Club.

RANDY IN INDY
09-16-2006, 11:27 PM
The US needs some new blood, cause a lot of the old blood hasn't been getting it done. Sometimes youth and inexperience hurt, but sometimes it is oblivious to the pressure. It will be fun to watch.

MWM
09-17-2006, 12:17 AM
I agree. I think having the rookies there will be a good thing. This might be the first time in a few decades where the Europeans actually have the better talent from top to bottom. They should be favored to win this one.

Razor Shines
09-17-2006, 12:57 AM
Did anyone notice, when they asked him what he would be doing if he wasn't a golfer, he said he would be a Navy SEAL? At first I was kind of shocked, and thought "a golfer making it as a SEAL?" But after thinking about it more, he probably would make it, he has the focus and determination, also he went to Harvard so he's not stupid. I just thought that was funny.

paintmered
09-17-2006, 06:52 AM
Did anyone notice, when they asked him what he would be doing if he wasn't a golfer, he said he would be a Navy SEAL? At first I was kind of shocked, and thought "a golfer making it as a SEAL?" But after thinking about it more, he probably would make it, he has the focus and determination, also he went to Harvard so he's not stupid. I just thought that was funny.

Who is he?

RFS62
09-17-2006, 08:47 AM
If you're referring to Tiger, he went to Stanford for two years.

And his father was a Green Beret in Viet Nam. Earl was also the first black man to play baseball in the Big 8 conference.

Razor Shines
09-17-2006, 12:06 PM
Who is he?

If you're referring to Tiger, he went to Stanford for two years.

And his father was a Green Beret in Viet Nam. Earl was also the first black man to play baseball in the Big 8 conference.

Sorry I was kind of, what do you call it, oh yeah drunk when I posted this. Yes I was talking about Tiger, and I don't know why I put Harvard. And I knew his Father was in the military, but I did not know that he was a Green Beret. That provides a little more insight as to why Tiger would want to go into special forces.

Chip R
09-22-2006, 09:44 AM
USA down 2 1/2 to 1 1/2 at the end of the 4 ball matches this morning.

paintmered
09-22-2006, 09:50 AM
USA down 2 1/2 to 1 1/2 at the end of the 4 ball matches this morning.

That's better than it usually is after the 4 ball matches. If the Americans can keep it within 1.5 points after the afternoon matches, they have a shot.

Tiger/Furyk won their morning match 1 up.

Chip R
09-22-2006, 10:02 AM
I heart Ryder Cup.

dabvu2498
09-22-2006, 10:04 AM
I heart Ryder Cup.

It is good theatre.


The following are the matches for Friday afternoon's Foursomes at the Ryder Cup:

Match 5: Padraig Harrington/Paul McGinley (EUR) vs.
Chad Campbell/Zach Johnson (USA)

Match 6: David Howell/Henrik Stenson (EUR) vs.
Stewart Cink/David Toms (USA)

Match 7: Lee Westwood/Colin Montgomerie (EUR) vs.
Phil Mickelson/Chris DiMarco (USA)

Match 8: Luke Donald/Sergio Garcia (EUR) vs.
Tiger Woods/Jim Furyk (USA)

paintmered
09-22-2006, 10:09 AM
I heart Ryder Cup.

Agreed. What station is broadcasting the afternoon matches?

Highlifeman21
09-22-2006, 10:33 AM
Agreed. What station is broadcasting the afternoon matches?


USA, all day. 8A to 6P. Best all day programming I've seen on any station in forever.

flyer85
09-22-2006, 12:13 PM
USA, all day. 8A to 6P. Best all day programming I've seen on any station in forever.not shown live

paintmered
09-22-2006, 12:42 PM
not shown live

Yeah, I just realized that as I went down the street to watch some of it and saw they were still showing the morning matches.

Darn. :(

ochre
09-22-2006, 12:44 PM
Did the european tabloids set up fake porn sites featuring Jack's wife as the principle back in the day?
http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news;_ylt=AgIUfXvUypAVatKSad4W6f85nYcB?slug=ap-rydercup-woods-tabloids&prov=ap&type=lgns

dabvu2498
09-22-2006, 12:51 PM
Did the european tabloids set up fake porn sites featuring Jack's wife as the principle back in the day?
http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news;_ylt=AgIUfXvUypAVatKSad4W6f85nYcB?slug=ap-rydercup-woods-tabloids&prov=ap&type=lgns

Did Jack's wife look like Elin???

dabvu2498
09-22-2006, 01:15 PM
Not looking real good for the US in the afternoon matches.

paintmered
09-22-2006, 01:23 PM
There's live streaming video of coverage at www.rydercup.com.

:thumbup:

dabvu2498
09-22-2006, 01:44 PM
Ugly afternoon.

Europe 5
USA 3

paintmered
09-22-2006, 01:48 PM
Ugly afternoon.

Indeed. That Chris DiMarco miss on the 18th very well might be the difference come Sunday. As soon as I saw the Luke Donald and Sergio pairing, I knew things weren't going to go well.

The difference between a 1 and a 2 point defecit is huge - especially when a tie means the euros retain the cup.

It's great theater, but the Americans still can't figure out how to act the part.

Hoosier Red
09-22-2006, 03:53 PM
It could have been a lot worse. I saw the pairings and was afraid the Euros may take anywhere from 3 to 4 points.
Stay within 3 points by the end of Saturday and we have a real match.

MWM
09-22-2006, 10:46 PM
Today's matches were about as close as could be. This is a definite improvement over the last few cups. I'm not sure what it is about the Ryder Cup, but the European players play well above their individual abilities cosistently. They play their absolute best golf for this tournament.

Highlifeman21
09-23-2006, 03:41 AM
And Tiger still sucks in alternate shot....

From what I saw today, had the Euro's actually sank a putt, we're lucky to have 3 points.

Sergio Garcia is a Ryder Cup machine.

RawOwl UK
09-23-2006, 05:12 AM
Tiger carrying yesterdays form !!!!

GO EUROPE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

RawOwl UK
09-23-2006, 05:14 AM
Also talk of him being dropped from the afternoon foursomes.

Razor Shines
09-23-2006, 02:15 PM
Also talk of him being dropped from the afternoon foursomes.

By the announcers. They won't sit possibly the greatest golfer in history, I don't care how bad he's playing.

Highlifeman21
09-23-2006, 02:18 PM
Europe 10
USA 6

After the completion of day 2.

By my math, USA needs 14.5 to take the cup, which means they need to hold the Euros to no more than 3 singles victories. Win 8, lose 3, halve 1. Hmmmm. Custer had better odds.

See ya in 2008 Ryder Cup.

MWM
09-23-2006, 06:05 PM
I just don't get it. Why, why, why, why, why does this happend EVERY SINGLE TIME? This might be the first time in decades where the European team is actually better top to bottom, but this Cup is almost an exact replica of the last 6, except the Justin Leonard one.

MaineRed
09-23-2006, 06:15 PM
Europe has a great team. Sergio right now is without a doubt the best Ryder Cup player in history. There is no argument. It is amazing the kid doesn't have 5 majors, let alone one.

I think Lehman messed up with the pairings.

First, he had a bunch of inexperienced players. Too many to count. IMO he should have paired one of them with Woods and one of them with Furyk, for the fourball. Put them together and they don't produce and you are in trouble.

I also didn't like the Dimarco-Mickelson pairing. Those are two of the top 4 or 5 Americans meaning that Lehman put out two teams each time that in comparison to Europe didn't match up.

I would of paired Woods and Furyk with whomever. I would have paired Mickelson up with Toms. Phil doesn't need Dimarco's fist pumping. I think Chris is another guy who should have played with a rookie. The guy loves the competetion and his emotion can carry you.

Woods/Henry
Furyk/Johnson
Mickelson/Toms
DiMarco/Campbell

IMO those are 4 strong teams. Teams that could better match up with the Euros.

I'm an American but I don't get too worked up with who wins. I just want to see good golf. I love watching Sergio go 4-0. It is historical. I love seeing Olazabal out there with Sergio. It reminds me of Olie playing with Seve when he was young. Seeing Monty play so well is special to me. He has had a lot of heartache in the majors and I believe he deserves the good fortune he has brought himself in the Ryder Cup.

The Europeans have a tremendous team. Paul Casey and David Howell seems like a no name team but it is the top two guys on the European Order of Merit. Nobody has heard of Henrik Stenson but that boy can play. He has lapped the field a few times this season. Darren Clarke and Lee Westwood are two good players but they are not Furyk and Woods. But come the Ryder Cup they are Arnie and Jack.

You have to be happy for Darren Clarke.

I just wish it were a little closer. Two early wins for Europe and it is all but over on Sunday.

MaineRed
09-23-2006, 06:17 PM
MWM, up to this point, this IS a replica of Brookline. The difference that year was Sunday.

The last 4 or 5 have gone this way thru Saturday. It always seems to be 10-6 or 9.5-6.5.

Europe is just better. By quite a bit. No big deal. They invented the game.

We expect to dominate in hoops ...........

MWM
09-23-2006, 06:19 PM
I think most golf fans have heard of Henrik Stenson, and understand how good Paul Casey and David Howell is.

They might be better this year, but it's the first time in a while they are better on paper. But top to bottom, outside the 12 on each team, USA is still significantly better than Europe. That's not even a debate.

And i think it's a bit premature to call Sergio the best ever at this event. There have been some great records over the years in the Ryder cup.

MaineRed
09-23-2006, 06:22 PM
Yeah and Sergio has the best record of anyone. By far. And he is only 26. Calling him the best in this event is no different than calling Woods the best golfer of all time.

He has done nothing but cement his reputation this year. He is 8-0-1 in his last 9 matches.

I would be willing to bet that most fans don't know how good Stenson is and would not name either Howell or Casey if asked to name the top 5 on the order of merit.

I respect them and know who they are but I don't think they are household names in America.

MaineRed
09-23-2006, 06:26 PM
I was talking about just the Cup, not the state of golf. No doubt Americans own the golf world. Euros rarely win the majors. But 1-12, they have us beat.

Had it not been for 99, the Euros would be going for their sixth straight win.

MaineRed
09-23-2006, 06:36 PM
Sergio came into this event with the best point % in Ryder Cup History at 73%. Monty came in second at 66%. Seve and Olazabal are the only other notable names who are close and they were both at 60% coming in. Sergio has done nothing but pull away from the field.

Monty had 16 wins coming in, Olie 15 and Seve 20.

Sergio now has 14 and again, he is 26. 14-3-2! Win or lose tommorow (he gets Stewart Cink) he will leave this years event with a point percentate approaching 80%. A 15% lead in that and he is approaching the win totals of Seve, Monty and Olie.

If he beats Cink, he'll move into 8th on the all time Euro point list, behind, Faldo, Seve, Monty, Olazabal, Langer, Jacklin and Woosnam. WOW! And unlike them the team wins. They've all been captains, except for current team members, Monty and Jose Maria. Garcia will probably play in 8 more cups before he gets even considered for the captaincy. If Sergio was American, he'd be 7th on the all time wins list. Amazing. Did I mention that he is 26?

I don't think it is premature to call him the best ever. He's the best in a landslide IMO. He is the Tiger Woods of the Ryder Cup. And he not only produces but he brings out the best in others. Olie, Westwood and Donald have all greatly benefited from being paired with El Nino over the years.

If only Sergio could play like this in the Majors. We'd have the greatest golf rivalry ever.

Razor Shines
09-23-2006, 08:54 PM
Europe has a great team. Sergio right now is without a doubt the best Ryder Cup player in history. There is no argument. It is amazing the kid doesn't have 5 majors, let alone one.

I think Lehman messed up with the pairings.

First, he had a bunch of inexperienced players. Too many to count. IMO he should have paired one of them with Woods and one of them with Furyk, for the fourball. Put them together and they don't produce and you are in trouble.

I also didn't like the Dimarco-Mickelson pairing. Those are two of the top 4 or 5 Americans meaning that Lehman put out two teams each time that in comparison to Europe didn't match up.

I would of paired Woods and Furyk with whomever. I would have paired Mickelson up with Toms. Phil doesn't need Dimarco's fist pumping. I think Chris is another guy who should have played with a rookie. The guy loves the competetion and his emotion can carry you.

Woods/Henry
Furyk/Johnson
Mickelson/Toms
DiMarco/Campbell

IMO those are 4 strong teams. Teams that could better match up with the Euros.

I'm an American but I don't get too worked up with who wins. I just want to see good golf. I love watching Sergio go 4-0. It is historical. I love seeing Olazabal out there with Sergio. It reminds me of Olie playing with Seve when he was young. Seeing Monty play so well is special to me. He has had a lot of heartache in the majors and I believe he deserves the good fortune he has brought himself in the Ryder Cup.

The Europeans have a tremendous team. Paul Casey and David Howell seems like a no name team but it is the top two guys on the European Order of Merit. Nobody has heard of Henrik Stenson but that boy can play. He has lapped the field a few times this season. Darren Clarke and Lee Westwood are two good players but they are not Furyk and Woods. But come the Ryder Cup they are Arnie and Jack.

You have to be happy for Darren Clarke.

I just wish it were a little closer. Two early wins for Europe and it is all but over on Sunday.

I agree that those pairings might have done better. But when you've got Tiger saying that he's "finally found a partner" in Furyk it'd be awfully hard for Lehman to put him with someone else. I think some day Tiger will figure out how to take the mindset he has when he plays alone and transfer it to playing with a partner. When he figures it out he'll be dominating, but right now he's clearly not the same player.

I thought that Sergio's comments about Tiger not being very good in the Ryder Cup would have been enough to wake him up. Like earlier this year in that match play event when he beat some poor guy to death, something like 9 and 8, after the guy made some comment about Tiger not being on his game. Even today Sergio made some jabbing comment to Tiger while they were playing and I was thinking "Sergio why would you even take a chance on waking him up?" But he never did play any better.

MaineRed
09-23-2006, 09:16 PM
But this is the Ryder Cup and the greatest golfer ever, should not need to be playing with the number two ranked golfer in the world (Furyk) to play well. He should be able to go out and dominate, playing his own ball, no matter who he is playing with. Alternate shot, well that is a different story. But I was talking about fourball.

Wasn't it the last Ryder Cup that Woods and Chris Riley played so well together and we heard the same talk about Woods finding his partner. Well if that is the case and Lehman has to bow to Tiger Woods, why didn't he select Riley so he could play with Woods, instead of Verplank who he only used once?

To me, taking the two top golfers in the world and making one team is stupid. Especially with so many young guys. Tiger doesn't need anyone to go out and play best ball. He can play his own ball and what his partner is doing should have no bearinng on what he does. He is going for pins regardless, just like he does on a weekly basis. He doesn't need Jim Furyk to hold his hand.

But Brett Wetterich, Vaugh Taylor and JJ Henry? Being out there with Tiger, Phil or Furyk might have taken some pressure off, instead of sending them out with Cink or someone like that.

The Americans built two good teams for each session. The Euros built 4. That is why they lead 10-6. The difference in the formation of the teams was good for one point each session IMO.

By the way, it was Stephen Ames who Tiger trounced in the American Express.

Razor Shines
09-23-2006, 09:43 PM
Well like I said I agreed with you on the pairings. I was just saying what Lehman was probably thinking. And just like in most sports he probably did have to bow to his best player. And Tiger let it be known that he wanted to play with Furyk. And what's worse the US' two good teams didn't play well. I thought Lehman should have played JJ in afternoon. He missed that putt in the fourball but he was still hitting the ball well.

And I agree that the fourball shouldn't be any different for Tiger but for some reason he's not the same player. Maybe it's just having someone else depend on him.

Highlifeman21
09-23-2006, 10:56 PM
Sunday Matches

Montgomerie vs Toms : Monty
Garcia vs Cink : Garcia improves the record
Casey vs Furyk : Furyk's tapped out, let's go with Casey
Karlsson vs Woods : Who do you think?
Donald vs Campbell : Push
McGinley vs Henry : Irishman loses in hometown, way to go Henry!
Clarke vs Johnson : No way Darren loses this one
Stenson vs Taylor : Stenson, Mr. We don't know who he is wins
Howell vs Wetterich : Come on Brett
Olazabal vs Mickelson : Philly Mick doesn't have a chance
Westwood vs DiMarco : The claw won't save you Chris, Lee wins this one
Harrington vs Verplank : Verplank might just out putt him, since Paddy is 0-3-1.

By this count, it's gonna be 7-4-1 Euros, which goes to 17.5 to 10.5 Euros, which is only 1 away from my initial prediction of 16.5 to 11.5.

Way to go Lehman, you've done us proud with your Jerry Narron-esque lineup choices.

guttle11
09-23-2006, 11:51 PM
Sunday Matches

Montgomerie vs Toms : Monty
Garcia vs Cink : Garcia improves the record
Casey vs Furyk : Furyk's tapped out, let's go with Casey
Karlsson vs Woods : Who do you think?
Donald vs Campbell : Push
McGinley vs Henry : Irishman loses in hometown, way to go Henry!
Clarke vs Johnson : No way Darren loses this one
Stenson vs Taylor : Stenson, Mr. We don't know who he is wins
Howell vs Wetterich : Come on Brett
Olazabal vs Mickelson : Philly Mick doesn't have a chance
Westwood vs DiMarco : The claw won't save you Chris, Lee wins this one
Harrington vs Verplank : Verplank might just out putt him, since Paddy is 0-3-1.

By this count, it's gonna be 7-4-1 Euros, which goes to 17.5 to 10.5 Euros, which is only 1 away from my initial prediction of 16.5 to 11.5.

Way to go Lehman, you've done us proud with your Jerry Narron-esque lineup choices.

You're kidding yourself if you think the Ryder Cup matters to the Americans anymore. They care about the Presidents Cup and majors.

Let the Euros have their little Cup. When one of them wins a major, they might matter. It's undeniable that we have the best golfers in the world. And in the Presidents Cup, we play against higher ranked players that win majors, that's the real competition.

My Prediction: The Ryder Cup will be so irrelevant within a decade that it'll fold and merge with the Presidents Cup. And very few Euros will qualify. If we cared at all, we'd kill 'em.

Chip R
09-24-2006, 12:20 AM
So, should I change the title of this thread to Tiger vs. Jack vs. Sergio? ;)

RawOwl UK
09-24-2006, 05:26 AM
You're kidding yourself if you think the Ryder Cup matters to the Americans anymore. They care about the Presidents Cup and majors.

Let the Euros have their little Cup. When one of them wins a major, they might matter. It's undeniable that we have the best golfers in the world. And in the Presidents Cup, we play against higher ranked players that win majors, that's the real competition.

My Prediction: The Ryder Cup will be so irrelevant within a decade that it'll fold and merge with the Presidents Cup. And very few Euros will qualify. If we cared at all, we'd kill 'em.


fantastic post. USA USA :rolleyes:

MaineRed
09-24-2006, 07:44 AM
You're kidding yourself if you think the Ryder Cup matters to the Americans anymore. They care about the Presidents Cup and majors.

Let the Euros have their little Cup. When one of them wins a major, they might matter. It's undeniable that we have the best golfers in the world. And in the Presidents Cup, we play against higher ranked players that win majors, that's the real competition.

My Prediction: The Ryder Cup will be so irrelevant within a decade that it'll fold and merge with the Presidents Cup. And very few Euros will qualify. If we cared at all, we'd kill 'em.

Your prediction might be the worst prediction in regard to sport that I have ever seen.

This European team is perhaps the best team in history of this event for the their side. To suggest today that many of them won't qualify in the future is ridiculous. There is zero reason for anyone to even think of merging the two events and that is something the Europeans will NEVER go for. Why would they? They dominate the event so you want to make them better?

The USA used to play the British and the USA would always win. Then the rest of Europe was added. This made the event more competetive.

In recent years, it is the Euros who are dominating. So any suggestion of merging the events would invlove letting the USA team up with the rest of the world. Its the Brett Wetterich's and Vaughn Taylors' of the world who you should be suggesting, won't make it and shouldn't.

Perhaps if we could add Vijay, Ernie and Retief to our team, we could compete with the Europeans. The way things are going, a suggestion that the Europeans should have a broader selection of players to include the rest of the world is ridiculous, at best. Its the USA who needs the help, not the Euros. Pointing out the flaws with the European team and the lack of majors is fine, but it has nothing to do with this event. That is what makes this event so fun and special. Its not a Major where when you see Tiger in the lead you can turn off your TV.

If the USA thinks this event doesn't matter because there is a lack of world class players, they have serious mental issues and should seek some help when they get back home.

We're facing a GREAT team. For anyone on the USA team to not care because of a lack of Majors is crazy. If Brett Wetterich and Zach Johnson don't care because they don't respect the majorless players they are going against perhaps they should take a look in the mirror. Speaking of which, take away our top 2 players and we have all of two majors. TWO! The same amount as Jose Maria Olazabal.

Your post makes a lot of sense, IF the USA was dominating and Woods and Mickleson were a combined 8-0-0.

Trust me, if 3 of the 4 majors each year were played in Europe, after the top 2 players, the remaining ten would have at least 2, just like the USA does.

The Europeans deserve lots of credit for how they play in this event. The other 51 weeks of the year mean nothing THIS weekend. There is certainly nothing to suggest the Euros need help to save the event.

If we cared, we'd kill them? What gives you that idea? The USA has 3 of the top 5 in the World. After that Europe has all the advantages. There 4th guy is better than ours, all the way down to 12. And when our top 3 don't produce, look out. You get what you have this year. As I type this, Tiger, who doesn't care, is 2 up thru 5 holes.

Thanks for the laugh.

Razor Shines
09-24-2006, 08:49 AM
You're kidding yourself if you think the Ryder Cup matters to the Americans anymore. They care about the Presidents Cup and majors.

Let the Euros have their little Cup. When one of them wins a major, they might matter. It's undeniable that we have the best golfers in the world. And in the Presidents Cup, we play against higher ranked players that win majors, that's the real competition.

My Prediction: The Ryder Cup will be so irrelevant within a decade that it'll fold and merge with the Presidents Cup. And very few Euros will qualify. If we cared at all, we'd kill 'em.
2 Billion people watching don't think it's irrelevant. I don't see how you can say they US guys don't care.

MWM
09-24-2006, 11:20 AM
The US players care - A LOT! Up until this year, I think it's been mental more than anything else. This year they were probably the weaker team. But in events like this the table will turn at some point. The American team will most likely go on a similar streak in the next decade or so. It's like the Ohio State - Michigan game. If you last year, and even moreso if you've won something like 4 out of 5, it totally reduces the pressure of the game.

But I do agree that it means a lot more to the Europeans than the Americans.

MaineRed
09-24-2006, 11:57 AM
The only player to not make the European team who is in the top 50 in the World Golf Rankings is Thomas Bjorn.

On the American side, Davis Love, Kenny Perry, Bart Bryant, Fred Couples, Ben Crane, Lucas Glover, Aaron Oberholser, Sean O'Hair and the captain himself, Tom Lehman all failed to make the team from inside the top 50 in the world rankings. On top of that list are six other Americans who are ranked higher than Brett Wetterich who did not make this team. Two of them are major champions, Ben Curtis and Shawn Mikeel. A third guy Fred Funk would thrive in this role but his probably considered too old. Too bad. 15 players, ranked higher than Wetterich did not play for the USA. How does that happen?

The US would of been better off with Couples, O'Hair and Funk than Taylor, Wetterich and Henry.

I think this is the weakest US team I have seen in my life. By far.

Highlifeman21
09-24-2006, 04:21 PM
18.5 to 9.5

Way to show up, Americans. Tom Lehman is the Jerry Narron of Ryder Cup captains. Just when I thought Hal Sutton was bad, Tom Lehman was remarkably worse.

I thought my 16.5 to 11.5 was a good pick, I never expected a repeat butt-whipping like this.

Phil Mickelson, 1/2 point in this Ryder Cup, and you played 5 matches. Way to go.

MaineRed
09-24-2006, 05:19 PM
Lots of great golf shots today though.

That ace by Verplank was awesome. Yes the Cup had been decided but it was the first US ace in this competition, ever! Casey's yesterday was pretty cool to see as well.

That "chip" by Darren Clarke today with his putter was genious. It must have been a 130 foot shot. Perfect.

Did you see how Sergio was closed out? He chips in from well off the green and then Cink nails a long bomb, his fourth or fifth of the day to beat him.

Luke Donald made 2 or 3 from downtown.

Olazabal kept nailing long putts to hold off Phil.

How about the streaker on 18? Due to a long delay, Paul McGinley conceded the hole, resulting in a tie instead of a likely point for Europe. Very good sportsmanship. I'm happy for McGinley and Paddy Harrington. They didn't play all that well, the pressure had to be beyond comprehension. However they were part of a Ryder Cup rout, played in their backyard, literally. Very special, I am sure. Both seem like great guys.

And lastly, Darren Clarke. Not sure about anyone else but I got a few tears watching him after his match ended. This is why the event is so great. Its not like the Bengals-Steelers where you have to be all upset that the US lost. It is golf. It is theatre as much as it is a competetion, though it is a competetion and a world class one at that.

Clarke is another guy that seems like a regular guy who would be fun to hang around. All the Euros do.

If you told me I could party with the winning team after the event, I'd be out there cheering for Europe.

Who is the next US Captain? Faldo is up next for Europe. Some have suggested Paul Azinger. Freddy Couples is another. Larry Nelson would be a logical choice but his time may have passed.

I wish the PGA of America would come up with a captain with some charisma. Europe has Sam Torrance, Seve, Woosie, Faldo. We go with Strange, Sutton and Lehman.

My sleeper pick is Hale Irwin. I think he earned it.

guttle11
09-24-2006, 05:26 PM
Your prediction might be the worst prediction in regard to sport that I have ever seen.

This European team is perhaps the best team in history of this event for the their side. To suggest today that many of them won't qualify in the future is ridiculous. There is zero reason for anyone to even think of merging the two events and that is something the Europeans will NEVER go for. Why would they? They dominate the event so you want to make them better?

The USA used to play the British and the USA would always win. Then the rest of Europe was added. This made the event more competetive.

In recent years, it is the Euros who are dominating. So any suggestion of merging the events would invlove letting the USA team up with the rest of the world. Its the Brett Wetterich's and Vaughn Taylors' of the world who you should be suggesting, won't make it and shouldn't.

Perhaps if we could add Vijay, Ernie and Retief to our team, we could compete with the Europeans. The way things are going, a suggestion that the Europeans should have a broader selection of players to include the rest of the world is ridiculous, at best. Its the USA who needs the help, not the Euros. Pointing out the flaws with the European team and the lack of majors is fine, but it has nothing to do with this event. That is what makes this event so fun and special. Its not a Major where when you see Tiger in the lead you can turn off your TV.

If the USA thinks this event doesn't matter because there is a lack of world class players, they have serious mental issues and should seek some help when they get back home.

We're facing a GREAT team. For anyone on the USA team to not care because of a lack of Majors is crazy. If Brett Wetterich and Zach Johnson don't care because they don't respect the majorless players they are going against perhaps they should take a look in the mirror. Speaking of which, take away our top 2 players and we have all of two majors. TWO! The same amount as Jose Maria Olazabal.

Your post makes a lot of sense, IF the USA was dominating and Woods and Mickleson were a combined 8-0-0.

Trust me, if 3 of the 4 majors each year were played in Europe, after the top 2 players, the remaining ten would have at least 2, just like the USA does.

The Europeans deserve lots of credit for how they play in this event. The other 51 weeks of the year mean nothing THIS weekend. There is certainly nothing to suggest the Euros need help to save the event.

If we cared, we'd kill them? What gives you that idea? The USA has 3 of the top 5 in the World. After that Europe has all the advantages. There 4th guy is better than ours, all the way down to 12. And when our top 3 don't produce, look out. You get what you have this year. As I type this, Tiger, who doesn't care, is 2 up thru 5 holes.

Thanks for the laugh.

You think those guys were mentally into the Ryder Cup? I don't

American golfers care about majors and money. The Ryder Cup flat out doesn't matter to them anymore. You could see it in their body english. There was no fight in them. They couldn't wait to get it over with.

People can put all the sugar coating on it that they want, but the Ryder Cup is secondary to US Golfers.

MaineRed
09-24-2006, 06:29 PM
That seems to go against the assertion in your first post on this page that the Americans only care about the Presidents Cup and majors. Now it is majors and money.

The Americans do care. Did you see Furyk yelp after making eagle on 16 today to get to two down with two to go. Hardly the reaction of someone who just wants to get it over with. Stewart Cink came out today, stared down Sergio and kicked his ass. Dimarco played like he wanted to go home up to the turn but he turned it into a match. Scotty Verplank showed up to play today. David Toms held in there and gave himself a shot at a half on the last against the undefeated in singles play, Monty.

Not sure who looked like they wanted to get it over with. Maybe Mickelson but what do you expect him to look like when he is going home 0-4-1?

The Euros are better. The excuse that the US doesn't care, doesn't fly. We sent a flawed team that predictably got beat.

You sound like Reds fan who is saying we haven't been to the play-offs in 12 years because the players just don't care while ignoring the lack of talent.

Razor Shines
09-25-2006, 12:33 PM
How old is Olazabal? The number 2 player in the world can't beat him? Tiger atleast shows up for the singles matches. And Furyk played pretty well down the stretch but he got beat by a guy who may very well be the 2nd best golfer in the world right now.

guttle11
09-25-2006, 12:48 PM
That seems to go against the assertion in your first post on this page that the Americans only care about the Presidents Cup and majors. Now it is majors and money.

The Americans do care. Did you see Furyk yelp after making eagle on 16 today to get to two down with two to go. Hardly the reaction of someone who just wants to get it over with. Stewart Cink came out today, stared down Sergio and kicked his ass. Dimarco played like he wanted to go home up to the turn but he turned it into a match. Scotty Verplank showed up to play today. David Toms held in there and gave himself a shot at a half on the last against the undefeated in singles play, Monty.

Not sure who looked like they wanted to get it over with. Maybe Mickelson but what do you expect him to look like when he is going home 0-4-1?

The Euros are better. The excuse that the US doesn't care, doesn't fly. We sent a flawed team that predictably got beat.

You sound like Reds fan who is saying we haven't been to the play-offs in 12 years because the players just don't care while ignoring the lack of talent.

What has Tiger always said, or people around him always said, that his goals in golf were? Win the Masters because of it's racist history, and break jack's record of majors. Absolutely nothing about the Ryder Cup. Sure, they're competitive and want to win, but the Ryder Cup is not the highlight on the schedule for Amrican golfers that it used to be.

I think the Ryder Cup is on a level with The Players Championship. Sure it would be nice to win, but it's not what you strive for at the start of the year.

IMO, the Presidents Cup will overtake the Ryder Cup in importance. Weir, Vijay, Els, and Goosen all win majors and are better than pretty much everyone on the Euro team. It's only natural to want to beat those guys more.

RANDY IN INDY
09-25-2006, 01:42 PM
The Ryder cup is about "pride" and you don't become a good enough golfer to make that team without it. The Ryder Cup has a prestigious and wonderful history in the game of golf and today's players not only represent the United States, but also legends like Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer to name only a few. You think they want to be thought of as any less than those guys and the legends of United States past in the Ryder Cup competition? Winning the Ryder Cup is extremely important to today's players. Don't fool yourself into thinking differently.

MaineRed
09-25-2006, 02:57 PM
Most players don't bring up the Ryder Cup unless asked. Nobody thinks about it until the event rolls around, and that goes for both sides. Sergio and Monty's goals are to win majors too and I have never seen either say they want to be remembered for what they did in the Ryder Cup and I haver never seen either point towards the Cup when asked about their individual misery to explain they care about the RC more.

The Euros seem to care more but why wouldn't they when they have won 3 in a row and should have 6 in a row? Has any team ever been dominated for 12 years and been called the team who wants it more or the team who has more fun?

The US has had plenty of great Ryder Cuppers over the years and I don't believe any of them ever made it a point to lay out their Ryder Cup goals. Just because Tiger wants to win the most majors doesn't mean he could care less about the Ryder Cup. If he did, he would just stay home. He has too much respect for the game. Its why he doesn't play the John Deere Classic or any of those second rate events. He doesn't care about them, so he doesn't show up. That is how Tiger works.

As for Olazabal, he is around 40 and ranked 19th in the World. Phil should not be expected to beat him just by showing up. Paul Casey is only ranked two spots ahead of Olie on the World Golf Rankings.

People in this country do not know how good the Europeans are. People are searching for reasons the US lost while skipping over the obvious.

MaineRed
09-25-2006, 02:59 PM
We'll see how much the US doesn't care when they win their next one.

Speaking of which, remember the reaction the last time they won? Silly me, I thought they has majors back then too.

Maybe not.

RANDY IN INDY
09-25-2006, 03:09 PM
I was about to post that in my last post. You would have thought it was a major with the way they celebrated. Nahhh, they don't care about the silly old Ryder Cup.

Chip R
09-26-2006, 05:54 PM
I was about to post that in my last post. You would have thought it was a major with the way they celebrated. Nahhh, they don't care about the silly old Ryder Cup.

Well, it was a different bunch of players. ;)

RANDY IN INDY
09-27-2006, 07:05 AM
That is true.

guttle11
09-27-2006, 06:45 PM
Most players don't bring up the Ryder Cup unless asked. Nobody thinks about it until the event rolls around, and that goes for both sides. Sergio and Monty's goals are to win majors too and I have never seen either say they want to be remembered for what they did in the Ryder Cup and I haver never seen either point towards the Cup when asked about their individual misery to explain they care about the RC more.

The Euros seem to care more but why wouldn't they when they have won 3 in a row and should have 6 in a row? Has any team ever been dominated for 12 years and been called the team who wants it more or the team who has more fun?

The US has had plenty of great Ryder Cuppers over the years and I don't believe any of them ever made it a point to lay out their Ryder Cup goals. Just because Tiger wants to win the most majors doesn't mean he could care less about the Ryder Cup. If he did, he would just stay home. He has too much respect for the game. Its why he doesn't play the John Deere Classic or any of those second rate events. He doesn't care about them, so he doesn't show up. That is how Tiger works.

As for Olazabal, he is around 40 and ranked 19th in the World. Phil should not be expected to beat him just by showing up. Paul Casey is only ranked two spots ahead of Olie on the World Golf Rankings.

People in this country do not know how good the Europeans are. People are searching for reasons the US lost while skipping over the obvious.

It's not about them being expected to win, it's about my opinion that they really don't care about the Ryder Cup.

And until the players themselves actually show me otherwise by their actions, I'll feel that way.

The Euros go into the Ryder Cup with a "We HAVE to win" attitude, while the Americans go into it with a "I hope we win" attitude. Phil Mickelson's body language told me all I need to know.

RFS62
09-27-2006, 11:28 PM
This isn't football. You can't play better golf by acting all macho and thumping your chest.

You have to stay frosty. "Cool mad" is what Sam Snead used to call it. The nerves of a cat burgler. Not wild eyed fanaticism.

Anyone who doesn't think they care because they're not frothing at the mouth doesn't get it.

RANDY IN INDY
09-28-2006, 06:53 AM
Absolutely.:beerme:

Highlifeman21
09-28-2006, 07:23 AM
Our futility in the Ryder Cup is social/cultural biproduct.

We don't grow up on this side of the pond playing match play. We're all about stroke play over here. Over on that side of the pond, match play is the norm, starting at young ages. You want to change future outcomes of Ryder Cups? Institute match play at the HS and College level. Instead of stroke play tournaments, which hardly mean a damn thing to kids ages 14-22, make them actually play against each other heads up. It's not about par, it's about beating your guy to help your team, a concept that has been lost on the American team for far too long.

elfmanvt07
09-28-2006, 07:29 AM
Jones
Nelson
Hogan
Palmer
Nicklaus
Hagan
Woods

MaineRed
09-28-2006, 08:36 AM
It's not about them being expected to win, it's about my opinion that they really don't care about the Ryder Cup.

And until the players themselves actually show me otherwise by their actions, I'll feel that way.

The Euros go into the Ryder Cup with a "We HAVE to win" attitude, while the Americans go into it with a "I hope we win" attitude. Phil Mickelson's body language told me all I need to know.


What did Chris DiMarco's body language tell you? What did it tell you when Furyk yelped walking off 16 on Sunday after his eagle?

What did it tell you when Cink kicked the crap out of Sergio?

What did Zach Johnson tell you? What did Scott Verplank tell you?

Fill me, when did Phil Mickleson's body language speak for the entire US squad?

Highlifeman, I agree. Not enough match play in the US. Match play is a lot of fun and we should use it more in the United States, at all levels. It also teaches you more about the game.

paintmered
09-28-2006, 10:33 AM
Highlifeman, I agree. Not enough match play in the US. Match play is a lot of fun and we should use it more in the United States, at all levels. It also teaches you more about the game.

It's not match play that is our problem so much as it is the four-ball and alternate shot formats.

guttle11
09-28-2006, 10:36 AM
This isn't football. You can't play better golf by acting all macho and thumping your chest.

You have to stay frosty. "Cool mad" is what Sam Snead used to call it. The nerves of a cat burgler. Not wild eyed fanaticism.

Anyone who doesn't think they care because they're not frothing at the mouth doesn't get it.

It's not about that.

The Europeans are not twice as good a team as the Americans, yet they won 18.5 to 9.5. Getting beat that soundly tells me that they weren't mentally prepared to play the event.

How much can you truly care if you do not prepare yourself like you should?

Chip R
09-28-2006, 11:49 AM
It's not about that.

The Europeans are not twice as good a team as the Americans, yet they won 18.5 to 9.5. Getting beat that soundly tells me that they weren't mentally prepared to play the event.

How much can you truly care if you do not prepare yourself like you should?

What should they have done differently to prepare, Coach?

RANDY IN INDY
09-28-2006, 01:29 PM
Not enough "hands in" huddles and chants before the matches. Not enought chalk talks. Not enough "kill drills" at the end of the practice rounds. You know Chip, all that kind of stuff.;)

Chip R
09-28-2006, 01:47 PM
Not enough "hands in" huddles and chants before the matches. Not enought chalk talks. Not enough "kill drills" at the end of the practice rounds. You know Chip, all that kind of stuff.;)

Lehman should have had them go to the first tee and had them each run to the 200 yd. marker and back to the tee box then run to the 150 yd. marker and back to the tee box then run to the 100 yd. marker and back to the tee box then from the tee box to the hole and back. ;)

MaineRed
09-28-2006, 03:21 PM
It's not match play that is our problem so much as it is the four-ball and alternate shot formats.

Silly me, I thought those were match play events.

RANDY IN INDY
09-29-2006, 07:09 AM
Maybe they should have got some tips from Gene Rayburn before they traveled across the pond.

My bad. That was the Match Game, not Match Play. Sorry. Got confused. Charles Nelson Reilly sounds like a good golf name.:D

RFS62
09-29-2006, 09:07 AM
The PGA clearly needs to bring in Ryan Freel for some scrapitude instructions for this bunch of lollygaggers.